Linux.com

Feature: Enterprise Applications

Review: VMware's worthy new option for virtual servers

By Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier on July 28, 2006 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

VMware announced in February that it would be releasing VMware Server, an "entry-level virtualization product," for free. After several months of beta testing, VMware Server 1.0 has finally gone gold. After spending several days testing the 1.0 release, I'm pleased with its performance and ease of use, particularly given the price.

VMware is trying to hold on to its market-leading position by giving away some entry-level products to hook users and organizations early, before they standardize on competing products such as Virtuozzo or Xen. Given the quality of VMware Server, the strategy just might succeed.

Installing VMware Server

VMware offers the VMware Server software as an RPM or a tarball with the installer and necessary components -- no Debian package at this time, unfortunately. I decided to go with the RPM install on a dual Pentium III 1.0GHz server with 2GB of RAM, running CentOS 4.3. VMware Server should install on most x86 or AMD64 Linux distros. The main prerequisites are GCC and the kernel headers for your system.

The install consists of running the RPM, and then going through a short configuration script to set up VMware's networking. For most users, the defaults offered by VMware should be fine; so it's mostly a matter of hitting Enter several times, saying "Yes" to the VMware license, and entering a license key.

The console is installed on the host machine, but VMware also offers standalone packages -- available from the VMware Web site and as a download through the VMware Management Interface -- so you can run the console from your desktop and manage servers remotely. The console is available as an RPM or tarball for Linux, and a Windows version is available as well.

Again, installing the console isn't terribly difficult. Either install the RPM or run the installer script, then agree to the VMware license, run through a few questions, and you can fire it up.

Using VMware Server

After setting up VMware Server, I decided to start testing with the Ubuntu 6.06 LTS server install. Setting up a new VM is simplicity itself; just log into the VMware Server Console, click on "Create a new virtual machine" and walk through a GUI wizard that will ask a few questions about the OS that you want to run, and what resources you want to grant to the virtual machine.

Since the VMware virtual hosts are supposed to be portable between different VMware products, I also decided to try running a few virtual machines created under VMware Workstation under Server. The Workstation guests ran fine under VMware Server -- though Server is, apparently, fairly sensitive to permissions. The first time I tried to run a virtual machine under VMware Server, I got an obscure error. I did a bit of Googling, and discovered the problem might have been the ownership of the files. After changing the ownership of the files, the virtual machine started up with no problem.

The second VM had an error that was a little more descriptive; it complained about needing execute access for the .vmx file. That seemed weird, because I'd grabbed the guest OS off of the VMware directory of freely available virtual machines. Setting the .vmx file as executable did the trick, though, and it ran fine after that.

The virtual machine performance seems to be pretty close to performance on equivalent hardware. I ran several virtual machines simultaneously -- mostly Linux VMs, but I also threw a Windows XP virtual host in for good measure. I used the stress, dbench, and tbench utilities to generate heavier loads on the virtual machines to see if that had any impact on other VMs hosted on the same system or the host system itself. Other than an increased load on the host system, which is to be expected since VMware Server is a process running on the host system, I didn't see any impact on other VMs or the host.

I did see a little performance degradation on the host when I had several VMs running and I was at the stage of creating a new VM's disk files. By default, VMware Server allocates all of the virtual disk space when the virtual disk is created, rather than filling it as time goes on. This is designed to improve performance over time, but it seems to be somewhat resource-intensive when the disk is being created.

I was impressed that I could run a virtual Linux or Windows desktop on the server and use it on my workstation via VMware Server Console and still see performance almost equal to running the OS on my local machine natively.

The only downside to running a desktop OS remotely is that VMware Server doesn't support sound over remote connections. This isn't a problem at all if you're running server OSes, but if you're hoping to run a desktop OS via VMware Server, it'll be a silent one.

Unlike its predecessor, VMware GSX, VMware Server offers support for virtual symmetric multiprocessing (SMP). SMP support is considered experimental at the moment, but I didn't encounter any problems with SMP enabled on one of my Linux virtual hosts that has an SMP kernel. I ran benchmarks and normal system loads to see if it had any issues -- it ran just fine, no problems at all.

One of my favorite features in VMware Server is the snapshot feature. If you have a system running as a virtual host, all you need to do is to take a "snapshot" before any major system change. If all goes well, no problem. If something goes south, you can revert to the system state prior to the snapshot with one button click. This is great for testing and production use.

What have you got to lose?

The only thing that concerns me, and should concern any company investing in virtualization, is that VMware Server -- while "free" as in beer -- is still a proprietary product. VMware giveth, and VMware can take away. There's nothing to stop VMware from dropping VMware Server at a later date in favor of a product that requires an up-front license fee, or from removing features if the company deems it necessary to boost adoption of more expensive offerings. This isn't necessarily likely, and I'm not suggesting that I expect it to happen -- but it's something to be aware of.

VMware does have a plan to make money off of VMWware Server. The company sells support starting at $350 for VMware Server on a system with up to two CPUs for one year, and it also offers add-on products to make management of VMware Server easier. If you have only a handful of systems that will run VMware Server, you can easily get by using the freely available tools, but VMware is no doubt banking on bringing in support and add-on dollars after organizations get their first taste of virtualization goodness.

Licensing caveats aside, I really like VMware Server. It's a solid product, easy to use and administer, and the performance is top-notch. If you need a way to run multiple hosts on a single server, I'd put VMware Server at the top of the list.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Review: VMware's worthy new option for virtual servers

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Hey Joe - what about this, did you test this out?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 29, 2006 02:04 AM
Hey Joe,

Other than it is too bad there is no Debian or Ubuntu based install option, that I find funny as VMWare was doing a Ubuntu free guest so the folks there know something about debian (why no deb)?

Did you test this:

1- Win2000 Pro (workstation) as the Host and VMWare Guests running RH, SuSE, and Ubuntu?

2- Do the Guests (windows or linux) have full USB usage (cameras, drives, external DVD/CD writers, etc), without affecting the host USB ?

3- Also - in the past I know of several folks who when running VMWare guests, well the guests would not keep the correct time? This was not too bad with RH Fedora Guests, but SuSE 9.x plus, and Ubuntu guests lost a whole bunch of time in 1 day... DID VMWARE fix this?
They had a web page that talked about it...?
here: <a href="http://kb.vmware.com/KanisaPlatform/Publishing/329/1420_f.SAL_Public.html" title="vmware.com">http://kb.vmware.com/KanisaPlatform/Publishing/32<nobr>9<wbr></nobr> /1420_f.SAL_Public.html</a vmware.com>
and
there are other comments on the web about this...
The problem does not happen with Windows Guests, just Linux guests...

Has VMWare fixed this so that it is a global fix for all distros running as VMWare guests (windows or linux host)?

#

Re:Hey Joe - what about this, did you test this ou

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 29, 2006 02:32 AM
The time problem is easy to fix. The best way is to compile a new kernel - you can find instructions here:
<a href="http://www.shocknetwork.com/forum/topic94.html" title="shocknetwork.com">http://www.shocknetwork.com/forum/topic94.html</a shocknetwork.com>

If you don't want to do that, just run the kernel with options: clock=pit noapci acpi=off nolapic

and then timesync with the host OS.

#

Re:Hey Joe - what about this, did you test this ou

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 29, 2006 03:09 AM
I've not used the fancy tools for factual metrics measurement but I've been mucking with VMware server for a few months now.

1. running winXP host with Mandriva, Ubuntu, Suse, Debian guest OS. Mandriva and Ubuntu ran clean however Debian continues to give me some grief. VMware has custom simulated hardware for a number of Linux distributions but presently offers a generic hardware simulation for "other" flavours. I'm sure better support will come with further development. Someone with more intimate Linux experience could probably get it going though; I'm good but there are those better than I.

2. I'm still playing with USB support with little success. VMware provides a link between the hardware USB and guest OS USB in the same manner as video, audio, drives and the rest of the hardware so theoretically, there should be no issue since it's just bridging the USB sockets and guestOS. I'm currently testing with win98 for minimul footprint to support some windows only things I need but I'll probably have a winXP virtual box setup again within the week.

3. If it wasn't addressed before, time has not been supported. VMware provides a "sync PC time with guest" function so your hardware bios and virtual bios stay together. So far all my VM guests have had no time issues.

To add some points:

I'm running a winXP/Mandriva dual boot with win32 and Linux versions of VMware. This should equate to the same hardware running the same virtualization deamon on two different host OS.

My joke used to be "even Windows runs better on a mac" when Bootcamp came out but it holds true that "even Windows runs better on Linux".

WinXP guest on a WinXP host (even through local connection) feels like a remote desktop. You get to move the mouse and see the screen but everything is lagged just enough to remind you your not really there. WinXP guest on Linux host still has just a breath of lag but but noticably more responsive.

This is provided simply for fact not the usual Win vs *nix arguments. Windows is an ease of use OS where Linux is a performance OS so of course Linux will make better use of system resources resulting in faster guest OS.

I can also state that virtual machines are very transferable. My initial setup was a fat32 partition to house VMware image files so that either winXP or Linux boot could access them. The only grief I had was VMware questioning the guestOS ID number (think database unique identifier) and updating the simulated floppy drive to point to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/fd0 or a: respective to which hostOS they where openned under. I had a small bit of trouble getting a regular user account to work with VMware only because the user did not have read/write access to the mounted fat32 partition.

I'm now looking to explore other virtualization apps including Xen but so far with VMware, I have no real need to do so. If all goes to plan, I'll be able to drop my winXP boot partition back to just big enough for a few game installs.

Other than that, I only need windows to properly sync my PalmT5/Razr/Outlook through USB and support the ATI tuner chip. I'd happily drop Outlook if I could get phone/palm sync support under linux (no motorola phone tools and kpilot can't track the constant USB port changes with the T5 constantly reconnecting). ATI tuner support will come with X7.1 in Mandriva2007 unless I upgrade my X sooner.

#

Re:Hey Joe - what about this, did you test this ou

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 29, 2006 06:38 AM
I've found the easiest way to fix the time sync issue is to add the following to each guest's VMX file:

tools.syncTime = "TRUE"

And then make sure vmware-tools is installed in each guest. If the host's clock is kept in sync (via ntpd in my case), then the guests will stay in sync as well.

Of course, the root of the issue is the amount of interrupts/second that various kernels generate. Reducing the amount of interrupts tends to reduce load on the host. In Linux this can be solved via a kernel recompile and setting HZ down to a lower value. In FreeBSD (my OS of choice) its even easier, just add the following to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/boot/loader.conf and reboot:

kern.hz="100"

#

VMWare Server is a nice tool

Posted by: kiz01 on July 29, 2006 03:32 AM
I've been playing with VMWare Server for about 4 or 5 months now (I started with some of the early betas) and have been really happy with it. At work I've switched to a linux desktop (SUSE 10.0) but had some issues with a couple of programs that required windows. So I set up a VM with only 256 MB of RAM and installed Windows XP on it. I have since been able to run all of those programs without any problems. It's really a great tool.

#

Nice tool indeed, however

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 30, 2006 09:17 PM
Hi,

Vmware server is nice, except that you need to get new license after sometime. You could do this to register everytime another emailaddress. But what if you run out of it? Buy support for $350 to use it for a year? I have put a question open at vmware support for 2 weeks now, but no one home. So it is likely that my licensekey will expire.. my vmware-servers will stop. So it is just free for a little time and then you have to pay?

#

Re:Nice tool indeed, however

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 01, 2006 02:08 AM
The present versions do not ask for any license key or serial codes. At least my VMWare Server did not. It seems to work indefinitely.

#

Re:Nice tool indeed, however

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 01, 2006 07:48 AM
Go back to the VMware Server website and opt to register for a new key. You can register for as many keys as you need at no cost.

#

Re:Nice tool indeed, however

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 01, 2006 10:30 AM
As the previous post says, you can register for more keys at their website. Since 1.0 came out, license keys generated now do not expire, so it is a good idea to replace your current one anyway.

#

Re:Nice tool indeed, however

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 02, 2006 01:57 PM
Vmware server is nice, except that you need to get new license after sometime. You could do this to register everytime another emailaddress. But what if you run out of it? Buy support for $350 to use it for a year? I have put a question open at vmware support for 2 weeks now, but no one home. So it is likely that my licensekey will expire.. my vmware-servers will stop. So it is just free for a little time and then you have to pay?

Something is wrong with your install. Are you re-using old keys from previous Beta and Release Candidate versions?

For the official Server version: you register once, generate the keys you need for the Linux version, and that's it. It doesn't expire.

#

Features Removed

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 01, 2006 10:58 PM
The betas had the ability to shink the used space of virtual disks. This was a welcomed feature. It was removed in the "Gold" release. Is this an example of things that will not be available?

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya